Few who are into card magic would disagree that the double lift is a staple, and arguably indispensable to this branch of magic. IMO, it is overused, and a logical spectator is more than likely to deduce what is going on if there are too many repetitions within a routine, or in the course of tricks within a set. Of course, it can be an exceedingly powerful tool in the hands of the cardician, particularly when a card is (apparently) shown, and placed in the hand of a spectator or on the table, and it then "changes." However, there is an intrinsic discrepancy in the execution of the double lift or turnover - specifically, the question is, Why would one turn a card face up to display it, only to then turn it face down onto the deck before placing it into a spectator's hand, on the table, into the deck, or wherever?

Do you see this as a weakness, or have you ever been called on it or had a spectator express suspicion at such a procedure? Do you have any feelings about how to strengthen conviction and/or dispel suspicion, when a double lift or turnover is done. This thread is intended to be open-ended, and virtually any thoughts or commentary on the double lift and/or turnover are welcomed.

Richard Kaufman wrote:I have never seen anyone make a truly convincing argument against using a Double Turnover.

Richard, I undestand that you have your subjective point of view (as I have mine). I am hoping you did not construe my post as an "argument" against using a double turnover. I am not seeking to upheave and revolutionize the entire course and history of card magic since the 18th century. I merely pointed out what in my opinion is a weakness in the context(s) within which the sleight is typically employed, and I do believe that if a card were to be actually turned over and displayed and then placed into a spectator's hand or on the table, it would not be natural to first turn it back face down on the deck. Laymen did not just fall off a turnip truck. They know, a priori, that a magician is purposefully going to try to deceive them, so why would they have conviction that the card ostensibly shown is in fact that card, when, for no apparent or logical reason, it is first turned face down on the deck before then being placed wherever?

Just looking to get peoples' thoughts on this and stimulate some discussion about magic.

Magic is not logic. I believe that might be Vernon.The Double Turnover was invented by Arthur Findley. If it was good enough for Vernon, it's good enough for me. But I do a dozen different turnovers and lifts. Change them all the time.

Whit Haydn shares a way to get around that unnatural replacement of the double back onto the deck in his book on the Chicago Surprise effect. When turning the double face down on the deck, he suggests glancing upwards and appearing slightly confused as you name the card. It's a momentary pause that let's this discrepancy slip by the spectators since the card is replaced so that the performing can briefly regain his bearings before continuing.

The amount of information on performing (card) magic Whit imparts in this book is staggering compared to the low price it commands. Value for the money was never more apt.

Why would it be "unnatural" to turn the card face down on the pack? Do laymen have protocols for looking at the face of a card?

I don't think so. The point of turning a card face up is to see it's identity. Once that information is obtained the flipping of the card face down SHOULD be an incidental action, and attention should be on the next important bit of information, such as what happens when you ask someone to hold out their hand. If anyone is looking at the card to assess the manner in which it is turned face down, you've already failed.

The problem is people who watch themselves turn a card face down, as if they are unable to do that without paying attention to their own actions. In the non-magic world laymen turn things over without intense concentration all the time.

Certainly there are in transit actions which make placing a card aside less awkward, but a bit less guilt and better planning can address that aspect. You can't really blame the double lift, for poor construction any more than you can blame bricks for bad mortar.

Bill Duncan wrote:Why would it be "unnatural" to turn the card face down on the pack? Do laymen have protocols for looking at the face of a card?

It looks a bit unnatural and suspicious if the card is displayed, then turned back face down and immediately dealt. Without an interim in between, a pause, or a reason to momentarily turn it back face down, it appears contrived. Necessary moves that might look a little awkward have to be camouflaged within natural movements so that they won't be noticed as strange and suspicious. For example a top change has to be motivated or else there can appear to be no reason why the hand holding the deck momentarily approached the other during the performance. The audience is always on the lookout for anything that appears suspicious.

Oddly enough the double lift was one of the most difficult sleights I ever had to learn! It took me years before I could do the damn thing properly without getting caught whereas for some odd reason I learned the pass within ten minutes despite the books telling me it would take months! I did start to make progress with it once I learned the Vernon Double Lift and nowadays I have about 6 methods of doing it deceptively some with "get ready's" and some without.

Eugene Burger was daft enough to think the sleight was "abominable" but I am sure that was merely because he had never mastered it properly. I never got the impression that sleight of hand was particularly his forte although he could do a moderate amount of it and what was sufficient for his work.

The main problem with the move is that is sometimes suffers from what Lewis Ganson described as "Double Lift Indigestion". In other words the sleight is overdone by a performer. If you have too much of a good thing laymen can catch the secret. That is why it is a good thing to use different card controls for different tricks (not that I always practice what I preach but at least I feel guilty about it!). And the double lift is certainly overdone.

The sleight was invented by Alberti well over a century ago although the turnover was an Arthur Finley thing. I shouldn't worry about the turnover thing. All you have to do scratch your ear or something giving them something else to think about. Make a gesture perhaps. I don't think it is a big deal. I have done the move thousands of times and the turnover has never evoked the slightest suspicion. Not even once.

Bill Duncan wrote:Why would it be "unnatural" to turn the card face down on the pack? Do laymen have protocols for looking at the face of a card?

It looks a bit unnatural and suspicious if the card is displayed, then turned back face down and immediately dealt. Without an interim in between, a pause, or a reason to momentarily turn it back face down, it appears contrived. Necessary moves that might look a little awkward have to be camouflaged within natural movements so that they won't be noticed as strange and suspicious. For example a top change has to be motivated or else there can appear to be no reason why the hand holding the deck momentarily approached the other during the performance. The audience is always on the lookout for anything that appears suspicious.

I could not agree more, Leo. And the ploy you noted Whit uses, I would think, does mitigate the otherwise unnatural procedure.

Bill Duncan wrote: "If anyone is looking at the card to assess the manner in which it is turned face down, you've already failed."

From my point of view it is not the "manner" in which it is turned face down that is at issue, but rather the fact that it is turned face down on the deck at all. If one were to really turn a single card face up and then really proceed to place that actual single card in a spectator's hand, would he/she do so by first turning it face down on the deck and then deal it off? I don't think so. Are there those who can honestly say that a layman has not prematurely turned over a card to verify what it was represented to be? I know that old habits die hard and that magicians think like magicians, not laymen. But how else could it be? Great discussion so far, though.

Last edited by MagicbyAlfred on March 30th, 2018, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Kaufman wrote:Magic is not logic. I believe that might be Vernon.The Double Turnover was invented by Arthur Findley. If it was good enough for Vernon, it's good enough for me. But I do a dozen different turnovers and lifts. Change them all the time.

Magic may not be logic, but many of the laymen I've encountered are logical.

As a result of this thread I have been going over some of the tricks I do where the double lift is necessary. Without fail every single one of them has a reason to turn the card face down. I can't believe that this is just me. I must be missing something somewhere. Unless I have just coincidentally happened on the tricks where there is no problem. Even the ambitious card has an inherent reason to turn the card face down on the deck. I really don't think there is anything worth worrying about.

Now sometimes I might have to do a double lift where no turnover is involved. Here I just replace the card and use my hand to gesture at the spectator or scratch my chin or something and of course in order to do that I have to have my hand free. So it is perfectly logical to put the card back on the deck temporarily.

I use a very crude double lift when I am selling svengali decks. No Finley turnover or fancy double lifts because there isn't time for it. I instinctively know that it would be a bit unnecessary to replace the card face down so I gesture to the people as an excuse to put the card back. There is no problem doing that.

If you watch any of my videos where I am demonstrating the deck you will observe the built in distractions and speedy pace nullifies any lack of logic and makes it completely insignificant. I do the double lift 3 times in the routine which can be a bit much and I wouldn't do it that many times in other tricks but having said that it has served me well in this particular routine.

Performer, my good friend, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what you have said. However, many modern routines I have seen involve turning a card (really a double) face up and then (apparently) placing said "card" in the spectator's hand. In such a situation I don't believe there is a reason to turn the "card" face down on the deck prior to placing it in the spectator's hand. Yes, it must ultimately be turned face down (i.e. face down on the spectator's hand), but is it natural to first turn the supposed card face down on the deck and then deal it off and place it in the spectator's hand? Vernon has been mentioned, but he was a staunch proponent that everything should appear natural.

But it is ALREADY on the deck! It seems perfectly natural to me to turn it face down where it already is! That is if you are using the Finley turnover. But even if you are using a double lift with no Finley aspect there is still no problem if you gesture to the spectator with the right hand but in order to do that you have to put the bloody card somewhere! So why not back on the deck?

Of course I am not using the Finley Turnover here. But a suspicion of a misunderstanding in going through my mind. The Finley Turnover is not the same as a double lift. I am wondering if Alfred is misinterpreting what Richard means by a "double turnover". That is only part of the lift. It is not the Lift itself.

Mark, folks, the glossing over of an unmotivated action has been with us since Tarbell (volume 1 Lesson 10 rising card escape), with the top card displayed then replaced - rather than bringing up the pack to ask if their card is on the bottom of the pack. As Bill and others have pointed out, most magicians are not going to do too well by pattering "and now watch me carefully as I turn this card face down for a moment".

But they are watching carefully, without needing any invitation to do so. Thanks to exposers on television, YouTube and Google, what once flew by without suspicion is now a widely known quantity - including, but not limited to, the double lift.

Just to clarify my thinking on this, I do think that the double lift and turnover is an exceedingly important and powerful tool - depending on when it is used, and also how often it is employed when performing for the same spectators. I think that the best way to avoid diminishing conviction, arousing suspicion, or even being challenged outright, is to use it in a context where they psychologically have no reason to be skeptical or doubtful that the "card" that is first turned face up, then turned face down on the deck, and (for instance) then dealt to the table face down, is any card other than what it is represented to be.

Contrast two scenarios. In the first scenario, the card, which is represented to be, let's say, the ace of spades after being turned face down, is then dealt off into the spectator's hand. In that case, they are essentially being asked to take it on faith that it is, in fact, the ace of spades. But they have no good reason for believing that it is the ace - quite the opposite actually, given that they know a magician is in the business of deception and their assumption that he/she can, and will, do clever sleight of hand. I have, on occasion, had people turn that card over and look at it or ask if they could do so, and I am pretty sure many who are reading this right now have faced a similar situation. For those who have not, I congratulate you on having achieved magical perfection, either that, or uncanny luck. I can hit a strike double quite accurately and deceptively, having spent the better part of my life doing that move, but even in cases where I nailed it beyond any possible technical reproach, fortune has not smiled upon me to the extent that every single spectator invariably "bought" that the card placed in their hand was the one I just showed them. And I don't blame them.

Now, compare this to the use of a double turnover in the context of the Magician Versus Gambler routine. This has consistently been one of the most requested - not just card tricks - but tricks, period, that I perform at the bar. People often ask me to do it for their friends and family when they come back in, and they remember and call it by name. In the first three phases, each time following a cutting sequence, an apparent ace is turned up, then turned down, then apparently placed on the table. And each time, there is 100% rock solid conviction that the card is an ace. Why? Because "the magician" in the story succeeded in what was supposed to happen, and because of the structure of the routine, there is no reason to believe that the card is other than the ace. In their mind, it is an exhibition of skill, not a possible bait and switch. When the second ace is cut to and revealed, then placed on the table, their conviction is only strengthened, because, the magician succeeded again in his quest, and is halfway there to cutting to the goal of four of a kind. When the third ace is shown, then turned over and (again, apparently) placed on the table the conviction strengthens even more. Even the general inadvisability of repeating a double lift several times does not apply and is irrelevant in this situation, and suspicion is not aroused. They are simply absorbed in the drama of the unfolding story, impressed by the exhibition of skill, and anxiously awaiting the final cut to see if the magician can triumphantly win the gambler's challenge and the bet. Because of the built-in psychological misdirection, there is absolutely no reason for them to question whether those really are aces on the table. In phase 4, I turn up a queen. They should, and they do believe it was a miss, and when that queen is then slid under the other cards and everything is flipped face-up to reveal four colorful queens, and they are reminded (as is the gambler) that the bet was to cut to any four of a kind, not necessarily four aces, it is a tour de force.

MagicbyAlfred wrote:Performer, my good friend, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what you have said. However, many modern routines I have seen involve turning a card (really a double) face up and then (apparently) placing said "card" in the spectator's hand. In such a situation I don't believe there is a reason to turn the "card" face down on the deck prior to placing it in the spectator's hand. Yes, it must ultimately be turned face down (i.e. face down on the spectator's hand), but is it natural to first turn the supposed card face down on the deck and then deal it off and place it in the spectator's hand? Vernon has been mentioned, but he was a staunch proponent that everything should appear natural.

The situation you describe is, sadly, common. If the person is to the right of the performer then turning the card over as it is placed on their hand is the most direct way to get there, and the action is awkward.

However, a simple change in blocking can answer the problem. If the person is on your left then flipping the card back face down on top of the pack and then thumbing it off the pack onto their hand is a more direct action than turning it over and crossing your right hand over the pack.

No matter where the spectator, it is always a good motivation to return the card face-down onto the deck in order to "free" your other hand, so you can gesture at your spectator with your flat, now empty hand and ask him to hold out his hand accordingly. Then thumb off the top card onto his hand.

Besides, I feel the heat is mainly on the DL when you telegraph that you are about to change that very card in a moment. If you, say, just show the bottom of the deck and then the top card(s) to prove that the spectator's card isn't there before you make it appear "from the center of the deck", there isn't much heat to bear. So I believe it's not (only) about the move and its potential lack of logic or naturalness, it's a lot about context, too.

Do you have any feelings about how to strengthen conviction and/or dispel suspicion, when a double lift or turnover is done.

One way to strengthen conviction is to utilize an offset replacement technique, the most elegant of these being the one devised by Vernon. The Vernon method is used with a double lift. There are others that can be used with a double turnover.

Do you have any feelings about how to strengthen conviction and/or dispel suspicion, when a double lift or turnover is done.

One way to strengthen conviction is to utilize an offset replacement technique, the most elegant of these being the one devised by Vernon. The Vernon method is used with a double lift. There are others that can be used with a double turnover.

Yes, that is a good move when done well. I had forgotten about it, although years ago I started learning it. I was having difficulty getting the lower of the two cards (i.e. the one displayed to spectator) perfectly square with the pack when turning the cards back over face down. I probably shouldn't have given up on it so soon. I think I will give it another go...

For the Double Turnover, the cards do not have to be aligned as they turn over since, being in motion, the alignment or lack thereof is invisible. Here's a tip for the turn down: before the turnover, bridge the deck upwards. Now there will be a slight space at each end when the card is turned over making the pickup and turn down easier.

90% of the magicians I've seen doing a Double Lift or Turnover make it look as if they're picking up a brick. I have my own ways of doing these moves that are nothing like what I've seen explained: my methods use a loose, open hand cradling the deck and the card appears to be pushed off loosely and turned over without the right hand holding it for the flip. The double is free of the right hand as it goes over and only really aligns as it hits the deck.

Zig Zagger wrote:No matter where the spectator, it is always a good motivation to return the card face-down onto the deck in order to "free" your other hand, so you can gesture at your spectator with your flat, now empty hand and ask him to hold out his hand accordingly. Then thumb off the top card onto his hand.

Zig Zagger wrote:No matter where the spectator, it is always a good motivation to return the card face-down onto the deck in order to "free" your other hand, so you can gesture at your spectator with your flat, now empty hand and ask him to hold out his hand accordingly. Then thumb off the top card onto his hand.

Zig Zagger wrote:No matter where the spectator, it is always a good motivation to return the card face-down onto the deck in order to "free" your other hand, so you can gesture at your spectator with your flat, now empty hand and ask him to hold out his hand accordingly. Then thumb off the top card onto his hand.

Exactly what I said.

Great minds sometimes think alike!

In fact, I mistook the gestures you mentioned rather as a pointing towards someone or as an undefined gesture, so I wanted to add my specific point of showing the spectator exactly what you want him to do - to stretch out his hand palm up and flatly.

Can the double turnover be considered the best method for effecting a card change in the spectator's hand? In his essay "Gaff Versus Skill" Jamy Swiss believes that if the practitioner possesses equal facility with both the top change and double turnover, the former is the superior method. Method affects effect:

The skillful Double Lift may be clean, but even if the sleight itself is deceptive, it is not much of a mystery how the two cards in question managed to get near one another. The spectators may not understand how the change was achieved, but they will certainly recall that the indifferent card (displayed via a Double Lift) that changed into the selection was never far from the deck, now was it?

The Top Change, on the other hand, if used expertly and hence deceptively, created an effect in which the indifferent card was displayed isolated and at a distance from the pack. Then somehow the card transformed under virtual test conditions. Truly a remarkable effect!

So if the top change is executed correctly, it creates the illusion that the displayed card never went near the deck before the change. In test conditions where the card displayed card is placed on the spectator's palm, use the double turnover method at your own risk.

I swear that the reason people who decry the double lift is simply that they can't do the bloody thing! They get caught all the time so they blame the sleight rather than their execution of it. It drove me nuts when I was young because 1 person out of three would know I was doing it so I can sympathise with those who have trouble. My trouble ended when I learned the Vernon Double Lift.

By some weird coincidence I have been annotating the Double Lift chapter in The Royal Road to Card Magic at the very same time this topic has been under discussion. Here is what I wrote a few days ago in the book:..............................................................................................................................................................................................

There is a disease common among magicians known as “double lift indigestion”. In other words you can have too much of a good thing! I first came across the term in Lewis Ganson’s excellent book on the magic of Cy Endfield. You can actually overdo a sleight and too much of this can actually give the game away. As the late Ken Brooke would say, quoting his mentor Albert Verity, “Don’t flog a principle”Perhaps this tendency to overdo the sleight thus giving away the secret had something to do with the very excellent and late lamented close up magician Eugene Burger agreeing with the late Stanley Collins that the Double Lift is “at its best it is a feeble device; at its worst it is an abomination”!!! Of course the Double Lift was a comparatively new sleight when Stanley Collins was around so perhaps he wasn’t quite used to it. As for Eugene Burger I have always suspected he didn’t like it because he couldn’t do it! It is actually a difficult sleight to do deceptively and in fact Burger made this very point. He said “I find that most effects involving Double Lifts are pretty tedious because so few people can perform that sleight without telegraphing to the people outside that two cards are being shown”. However, I think he was overstating the case. I and hundreds of other card magicians have been doing the double lift for decades without detection and to great gasps of delight from our audiences at the results. However, Burger was correct up to a point. It is indeed a difficult sleight to do deceptively if you go about learning it the wrong way. And when I first started I certainly went about it the wrong way! And sadly the double lift in the following description I believe to be the wrong way! The legendary magician Dai Vernon once stated words to the effect that a playing card was not a precious object to be handled with great care and deliberation but should be treated more casually. Alas in my considered opinion that does not apply to the following double lift! And to be frank, I used to get caught all the time doing it this way! Still, I have decided not to alter the original text of this book in any way so read it bearing in mind my caveat. But don’t despair! After the description I will give you two alternative methods which I think are far superior. Anyway, here is the original Royal Road to Card Magic method for what it is worth:

Leonard Hevia wrote:Can the double turnover be considered the best method for effecting a card change in the spectator's hand? In his essay "Gaff Versus Skill" Jamy Swiss believes that if the practitioner possesses equal facility with both the top change and double turnover, the former is the superior method. Method affects effect:

The skillful Double Lift may be clean, but even if the sleight itself is deceptive, it is not much of a mystery how the two cards in question managed to get near one another. The spectators may not understand how the change was achieved, but they will certainly recall that the indifferent card (displayed via a Double Lift) that changed into the selection was never far from the deck, now was it?

The Top Change, on the other hand, if used expertly and hence deceptively, created an effect in which the indifferent card was displayed isolated and at a distance from the pack. Then somehow the card transformed under virtual test conditions. Truly a remarkable effect!

So if the top change is executed correctly, it creates the illusion that the displayed card never went near the deck before the change. In test conditions where the card displayed card is placed on the spectator's palm, use the double turnover method at your own risk.

What a load of old twaddle!

In any case it all depends on the trick you are doing. You have to designate the most effective sleight for the specific trick. With some tricks the Double Lift is better and in some tricks the top change is better. I am equally proficient in both sleights so I use whatever I deem to be the most appropriate for the specific situation.